In short, while preferable in a number of respects, and while premised on the true or real insofar as it recognizes the “not-all” of the symbolic, it cannot be said that feminine sexuation will save us.

I confess that I have been unable to discern why Lacan refers to these two sides as masculine and feminine despite close reading and rereading of the three seminars where he develops these graphs and numerous secondary sources discussing Lacan's account of sexuation.

Third, Freud had tremendous difficulties accounting for sexual difference based on this model insofar as the initial love object of both boys and girls is the mother, yet raising the question of how girls come to identify with feminine sexed being rather than masculine sexed being (incidentally, I think Lacan has difficulties accounting for sexual difference as well, despite his graphs of sexuation).

Perhaps, then, the borromean clinic provides an alternative way of tying the knot beyond the Oedipus which Lacan refers to as Freud’s myth that would generate different formal impasses beyond those of masculine and feminine sexuation.